About the Overlord's forfeit

[Sylus Kurgen]

If it's the title holders obligation to accept a challenge or to get stripped, then some accountability needs to be put on the challenger when it comes to contacting and finding a caller. No more expecting the title holder to drag their challenger to do their job.

At one point in time, a post on the forum was not considered a valid challenge announcement. The challenger needed to e-mail the Baron/OL and then the Standings Keeper and the Sport Coordinator.

That practice was done away with under the idea that "Players check the forums more than their personal e-mails and no risk of Spam folder eating the announcement". Just replying to that particular aspect here.

[Sabine]

Hope is now stripped, we can't go back. If we have a rule in place to assist in the clarification handling queues, we can avoid this in the future, rather than trying to clean up the mess after.

^^ And this is what I'm looking at, along with the rest of you. Punishments need to be uniform and apply to all. It's part of my job here, to apply everything equally without emotional bias.

And I am fine with things being uniform. I really don't want special preference given to certain people. As I said before, if this is the rule we have in place, then it needs to be applied equally to all. I am not asking for special treatment for Hope. The rule is there, it was just not quite clear, but now we all know better. I just want to make sure this doesn't occur in the future and what can we do to make sure the rules are clear and concise?

Concerns:

1: Can we have the rules just flesh out and clarify the renegade queue acception rules? Does the current rule need to be reviewed at all? (Suggestions were brought up about having people accept the next challenge after the previous has been fought.)

2: Is a blanket stripping for a 1st time offense a good rule or too harsh?

3: Does an active duelist vs an inactive duelist deserve any different treatment?

4: What are alternatives to stripping of titles?

5: Sylus or Kal, can we please have dates/time stamps added to challenges like Rayvinn did? Those were great!

6: I also like what Apple brought up. I think we do need to enforce some responsibility on challengers, make sure they are following through as well.

Whatever is done, I feel that a hard fast rule works best so that there is no special treatment or no having to weigh and measure situations. People can construe that as favortism and that's a whole other can of worms. It's also if I remember correctly, why a lot of people did not like the Baron's Council.

Thanks for listening.

[Sylus Kurgen]

2: Is a blanket stripping for a 1st time offense a good rule or too harsh?

3: Does an active duelist vs an inactive duelist deserve any different treatment?

4: What are alternatives to stripping of titles?

2. I'm of differing thoughts on this simply because "How many challenges should a person have taken part in before they should just know better?"

3. No.

4. As stated previously..in the past, the BC has removed choice in duel format along with not allowing Tests or OL intervention. The Baron is left to fight alone, without any back up or life-lines. But that's something to look at how to integrate into the rules, if that's what's decided on.

[Hope]

There's been a lot of discussion and I think it's positive. Sylus have you read and acknowledged my last post and do either you or Kalamere plan on addressing it?

[Luna Eva]

Just to make my position clear, I don't think activity matters in determining whether a rule should be applied. Either it applies to the situation, or it doesn't. I think we're all pretty much agreed that the rules should be player-blind.

When I raised the activity level of the players in this case, it was to point out the disconnect between the goals of the rules and their application, in Hope's case in particular. I continue to question whether the rule is accomplishing its intended goal. Softening the penalty is one way to mitigate the problem of a rule having a contrary outcome to its goal.

2. I'm of differing thoughts on this simply because "How many challenges should a person have taken part in before they should just know better?"

Given that there was at least some ambiguity in the rule underlying Hope's stripping, I don't think the number of challenges a person has participated in is always relevant. If there's one thing I've learned over my short time here it's that dueling always seems to present new and unusual situations. At first blush, I would suggest having a two-step process (1. Warning, 2. Stripping) over the course of the baron's reign. That allows it to continue being a player-blind process, but perhaps allows for more equitable outcomes.

[Jake]

...Could there be a first time slap on the wrist without a stripping? Yes. ...

As a comment. If such a thing were to be considered, does it apply to the character? Or the player?

In the former, in theory a player could "get a warning" multiple times because they used different characters. In the latter instance, it means knowing what characters a player uses, which has generally been considered a no-no with regard to privacy, and would be difficult to enforce if the player doesn't out themselves.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's impractical in solution.

[Andrea Anderson]

...Could there be a first time slap on the wrist without a stripping? Yes. ...

As a comment. If such a thing were to be considered, does it apply to the character? Or the player?

In the former, in theory a player could "get a warning" multiple times because they used different characters. In the latter instance, it means know what characters a player uses, which has generally been considered a no-no with regard to privacy, and would be difficult to enforce if the player doesn't out themselves.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's impractical in solution.

That's what I'm worried about as well. There's more ways a slap on the wrist can be abused, even more when some players keep alts hidden. It'd be hard to implement it being player-based, and if it's character-based then anyone with multiple title-holding characters can use the system to their gain.

[Luna Eva]

I feel like what people keep doing is trying to change what dueling is, or what a specific sport is, to make it more palatable to new people, with a real focus on 'feels'.

Interestingly, nothing that's been said here has had anything to do with new players. This is a discussion about something that happens at a very high level of the sport, generally, and specifically, about two people who have been at it for a pretty long time, Matt, and at least a good while, Hope.

I hear you, Bob, about not wanting to add or change any more rules. I myself have found some of the DoS rule change discussions pretty exhausting. That said, I don't think that a proposed rule change about accepting a challenge in the renegade challenge queue does anything meaningful to change the sport of DoS, or in your words "what dueling is." My proposal was for a pretty discrete rule change. It does, however, have repercussions regarding the challenge process and the possibility of serious penalties, and I've found the discussion helpful in seeing how the potential rule change might not be that useful or might undermine other goals of the rules.

It just doesn't click with me, and I am specifically someone who has stopped dueling a few times because I got butthurt about stuff.

If people getting offended and leaving dueling is an outcome we're trying to avoid, an outcome that you yourself have experienced, isn't at least a discussion about whether the penalty fits the crime worth merit?

edited to add that I should stop messing with my own sentences after I've posted them

[Jake]

One of the problems of trying to codify black and white rules is that someone always tries to game the system. Which results in more rules. Which results in more complicated gaming of the system. etc...etc.

Ultimately, the spirit of the rules needs to be the goal. Which is where judgment is needed. It's not enough to say the rules are the rules. The rules are always going to be imperfect.

ETA: And discussion never hurts.

[Luna Eva]

...Could there be a first time slap on the wrist without a stripping? Yes. ...

As a comment. If such a thing were to be considered, does it apply to the character? Or the player?

In the former, in theory a player could "get a warning" multiple times because they used different characters. In the latter instance, it means know what characters a player uses, which has generally been considered a no-no with regard to privacy, and would be difficult to enforce if the player doesn't out themselves.

It's a nice thought, but I think it's impractical in solution.

That's why I would pin it to the baron, and not the player.

As to whether it could be gamed, I feel like that's hard for me to say. Like yes, it could be gamed, but would it be? I sometimes feel like we talk about potential abuse as a reason for not making a correction when the abuse is only likely to ever remain potential and not actual. But I also haven't been around as long as you and Apple, so maybe there's a history of rules being manipulated on this site.

[Jake]

As to whether it could be gamed, I feel like that's hard for me to say. Like yes, it could be gamed, but would it be? I sometimes feel like we talk about potential abuse as a reason for not making a correction when the abuse is only likely to ever remain potential and not actual. But I also haven't been around as long as you and Apple, so maybe there's a history of rules being manipulated on this site.

One could argue that delayed responses are a mild form of gaming the system. Sure, there are folks that legitimately don't respond for reasons (sick, family crisis, work crisis, lots of possible reasons), and the rule is designed to have some lenience (7 days) to accommodate those legitimate reasons not everyone checks/reads the boards multiple times a day. But, I think it's pretty fair to say that some folks deliberately run out the clock on the responses.

Again though, that's a pretty mild form of gaming the system, and probably not worth worrying about.

Sadly, we *have* had people that gamed our rules and then quoted back to us "but I was within the rules" or even justified their actions by saying "I was just showing you how the rules were broken" [by exploiting the system], and then forcing us to deal with a problem that didn't exist until they insisted on abusing the rules.

Fortunately, these people are rare.

I get where you are coming from, Luna, and don't have any problems with there being a discussion about the possible scenarios, and possible solutions. Good ideas can come out of discussion. Possible complications also come out of discussion.

In this particular scenario...challenge queues, it could be argued there's some vagueness to be resolved. e.g., when various challenges have to be accepted. I'm not sure there's really a need for a change to the 7 day rule for acceptance, but I'm certainly willing to listen to well thought out arguments with an open mind. (Not that my opinion carries any particular weight.)

[Goldglo]

I don't think Hope is going to be less active over this. Matt hasn't.

Just to expound on this a quick second (and writing only for myself, not in any way for Hope's player) - I think I disappeared nearly entirely for 3-4 or more weeks after getting stripped of the OL title with a self-imposed exile.

I was very upset with myself and beyond embarrassed (still am embarrassed) for not responding to the challenge in time, which was 100% entirely my own fault. I felt (and still do feel) that you all - the community - deserve better than me screwing something up so badly, especially as multiple players were affected by the circumstances.

/endsidetangent

--Matt

[Andrea Anderson]

Couldn't an easy rule be something along the lines of..

1. A title holder has seven (7) days to respond to a challenge after a coordinator validates their challenge.
2. Should a title holder fail to respond they..

(A) Loyal: Lose the ability to call for a test. Lose the right to choose format. The challenger gains the right to choose format.
(B) Renegade: Lose the right to choose format, and lose the ability to call for a test should they become loyal within the time frame of the challenge. The challenger gains the right to choose format.

3. Should the title holder fail to accept the challenge within 24/48 hours of the missed date, they are stripped of the title.

It could be a hard line stance for any title holder, once per title reign. If they fail again they are stripped. Couple this with all validations being coupled with the time/date rule Rayvinn put into place during her time as Coordinator.

On another subject though. I'd also like to point This post out.. This rule was made but it was never added to the official DoS rules, which reads:

2. It is the responsibility of the challenger to secure an official for the agreed-upon date. The caller chosen must be agreed upon by all parties directly involved in the challenge.

By this rule, my challenge with Myu should not be valid because a caller was not posted by midnight the day before the challenge. As well as any other challenges where a caller was never posted within the challenge thread since the ruling was made. Is this rule going to be added or has it been phased out? If it hasn't then I will accept my punishment.

[Hope]

The feeling I had today when reading back through the responses was first and foremost shame. I am ashamed to have missed the acceptance and it really boils down to me trying not to look far ahead of what was in front of me. Let me focus on my Overlord challenge, let me focus on Myria, I'll get to Andu after these.

I can already say that yes this is going to effect my presence and my activity. As a player I feel exactly how Matt did/does, I embarrassed myself and my title. That is all before I even try to comprehend how my character would be in this scenario. This is completely antithetical to her. There's a challenge tonight that Hope has no business missing and it's going to be a struggle to even show up and play on her.

Ultimately what I wanted was to see if I could ensure this does not happen to someone again. While reading Matt's post it got me thinking and a really good analogy for his scenario is: Matt is Conor McGregor and because he did not make it to a press conference on time the UFC took away his title.

From Sylus's own mouth this is the most harsh, severe punishment short of a total ban from a sport. Why is this the default punishment? A fighter gets pulled from a card if he doesn't make a press conference but to give up their title? How many challenges does it take for me not to slip once? Apparently not enough, we're only human.

Amendment: the only time prior to this that I failed to accept a challenge I retired that character from the sport.

[Mason]

On another subject though. I'd also like to point This post out.. This rule was made but it was never added to the official DoS rules, which reads:

2. It is the responsibility of the challenger to secure an official for the agreed-upon date. The caller chosen must be agreed upon by all parties directly involved in the challenge.

By this rule, my challenge with Myu should not be valid because a caller was not posted by midnight the day before the challenge. As well as any other challenges where a caller was never posted within the challenge thread since the ruling was made. Is this rule going to be added or has it been phased out? If it hasn't then I will accept my punishment.

Scroll down in that thread a few posts and it is changed to no penalty for not getting a caller.